From Wikipedia / Fueser's post - Looks like the Kyoto Protocol is pretty much a bust. Maybe the US had some insight into the folly.

Quote:

The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets.[15] Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).

From Wikipedia / Fueser's post - Looks like the Kyoto Protocol is pretty much a bust. Maybe the US had some insight into the folly.

Quote:

The 37 countries with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, all members of the European Union, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets.[15] Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol).

The US the largest of the top-per-capita consumers of carbon and a potential leader in renewable technologies never ratified the treaty. A folly, indeed._________________florian - ny22

I posted proof years ago that the U.S. is prohibited by federal law from signing the Kyoto Protocol. The last times it was tried, the Senate voted 95-0 and 99-1 against it. Besides being illegal to sign it, it would be a signed blank check from the U.S. treasury to the rest of the world. The stupid Trojan Horse excludes China, has not been shown by scientific analysis to do anything for the environment, failed in Europe, will cost many times as much as the Irag War with no benefit, declares CO2 -- your breath and absolutely necessary for plant life -- a toxin, and is a purely political scam right up there with cap & trade.

Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.

Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false.

<snip>

And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous "hockey stick" graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium.

Within a few years, however, I discovered that the first of these graphs told the opposite story from what I had inferred. In the ice cores, it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa.

As for the "hockey stick" graph, it was effectively critiqued by Steven McIntyre, a Canadian businessman with a mathematical interest in climatology. He showed that the graph depended heavily on unreliable data, especially samples of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, the growth patterns of which were often not responding to temperature at all. It also depended on a type of statistical filter that overweighted any samples showing sharp rises in the 20th century.

I followed the story after that and was not persuaded by those defending the various hockey-stick graphs. They brought in a lake-sediment sample from Finland, which had to be turned upside down to show a temperature spike in the 20th century; they added a sample of larch trees from Siberia that turned out to be affected by one tree that had grown faster in recent decades, perhaps because its neighbor had died. Just last week, the Siberian larch data were finally corrected by the University of East Anglia to remove all signs of hockey-stick upticks, quietly conceding that Mr. McIntyre was right about that, too.

So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the "consensus" says.

He demands a reasoned response from people he refers to as "deniers" to an article, the title of which describes people who disagree with the blog author as "stupid".

Which is why it's the perfect article for mac to post.
Which begs the question, what took him so long, it's like a month old?_________________I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.

Last edited by nw30 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total

Selective reading and lack of critical thinking at work, from the resident denier who cherry-picks as a hobby:

Quote:

He demands a reasoned response

I said that I doubt I would get a reasoned response, or even any indication that the deniers would read the article.

A quick summary, for those unwilling to read outside their biases.

1. Most of the thermal mass where excess heat can be stored is in the ocean, (93.4%), as compared to 2.3% in the atmosphere and the remainder on all remaining terrestrial mass.

2. The article showed a long term temperature time series, showing a steady increase for the last 100 years or so. Only if the past 10 years are snipped out and looked at outside of the context of the chaotic overall record can anyone argue that "global warming has stopped"--as our denier has. Cherry-picking at work,.

3. The substance of the article is a time series showing heat in the oceans, with a specific citation (Balmeseda, Trenberth and Kallen, 2013. Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat conent. Geophysical research letters 40(1-6)) that shows heat accumulation in the ocean during the period of time that deniers have argued, based on cherry-picked information, that global warming has stopped.

Like I said, I wasn't holding my breath. Maybe Lord Monckton has something pithy to offer?

Then there's this, http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaLevel actual data for CO2, temperature, sea and land ice and so forth. I got here because the data shows that the rate of sea level rise has increased from 1.7 mm/year during the 20th century to 3.16 mm/year since 2000. Hmm, that's the period that the deniers say global warming has stopped. Could they be wrong? Follow the money.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum